You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Outstanding

Updated 8 August 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 23 and 29 January 2018. The first day was unannounced. At our last inspection in August 2015 we rated the service as Good and there were no breaches of the legal requirements.

Burwood Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Burwood Nursing Home accommodates up to 58 people in two adjacent buildings on the same site. One building, known as Burwood, has 16 individual ensuite bedrooms and the other, Yaffle, has 42. Burwood has a communal lounge and dining area, but most communal facilities are located in Yaffle and people in Burwood have ready access to these. When we inspected, there were 52 people living or staying at Burwood Nursing Home. They were older people with physical health needs, most of whom required nursing care. Some were living at the service; others were staying for a limited period of respite or recuperation.

The service had two registered managers. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their visitors were very positive about their or their loved one’s care, and also praised the caring approach of the staff. The service had received compliments about exceptional care and how staff had gone the extra mile to ensure people were as comfortable as possible.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Their independence was promoted as far as possible, whilst respecting their choices. There was an emphasis on people having choices and their preferences being respected.

People and relatives took part in the interview process for new staff and had an influence over who was recruited.

Staff training had been developed around people’s particular needs; some people and relatives were involved in delivering this. This gave staff first hand insights into people’s conditions. Staff learning needs and styles were taken into account in how training was delivered.

Care and support was tailored to people’s individual needs. People, and where appropriate their relatives, were encouraged to be involved in the care planning and review process.

There was an emphasis on people experiencing a ‘good death’ when the time came, in other words, a dignified, comfortable and pain-free death in the place the person wanted to be. Staff had skills to understand and meet the needs of people and their families in relation to emotional support and practical assistance at the end of a person’s life.

Arrangements for social activities met people’s individual needs; there was an emphasis on people living as full a life as possible. There was an extensive range of optional group and individual activities. They took place both at the service and in the community. The management and staff teams went to great lengths to arrange activities that people really wanted to take part in, based on their interests or expressed wishes.

The service took a key role in the local community and was actively involved in building further links. There were strong links with a range of community organisations, including local churches, schools, the library, community groups and a nearby care home.

The premises had been designed with people’s needs and comfort in mind. People’s rooms had floor length windows, so people had a clear view over the grounds, even from their bed. There were different areas that people regularly used for activities, and also to spend time privately or with visitors. These included the ‘Railway Tavern’, furnished as a traditional pub, and an art deco thea

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks to their safety and wellbeing were assessed and managed.

There were enough competent staff to provide the care and support people needed.

Infection prevention and control was well managed. The premises were kept clean.

Effective

Outstanding

Updated 8 August 2018

Space was used creatively to help people live their lives as fully as possible. The premises had been designed and equipped with careful attention to people’s comfort, wellbeing and choice. They included a popular and well-used pub and theatre. All areas were maintained and decorated to a high standard.

People using the service and their relatives were supported to take part in staff recruitment and influenced the outcome. They were also involved in training staff.

Staff were aware of people’s individual preferences and patterns of eating and drinking and there was flexibility when needed or requested.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness. They and their relatives praised the kind and caring approach of the staff.

People were given information and supported to make choices, and these were respected.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was highly responsive.

End of life care was extremely person centred and based around models of best practice. Staff used their knowledge of people to meet their needs and the service was highly innovative in the way it worked with people and their families.

The service took a key role in the local community and was actively building further links. Contact with other community resources and support networks was encouraged and sustained.

There was an emphasis on people living as full a life as possible. Group and individual activities were highly personalised to people’s needs, wishes and interests.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was well led.

People who used the service, relatives, staff and professionals were confident in the leadership of the service.

The service had a positive, open, supportive, person-centred culture. Staff morale was good.

The service involved people and their relatives in a meaningful way.